DOCSLIB.ORG

Pool Frog Reintroduction Plan for Thompson Common, Norfolk Version

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pool Frog Reintroduction Plan for Thompson Common, Norfolk Version Pool Frog Reintroduction Plan for Thompson Common, Norfolk Version: 20 March 2015 Pool Frog Reintroduction Plan for Thompson Common, Norfolk Version: 20 March 2015 J.M.R. Baker & J. Foster Suggested citation: Baker, J.M.R. & Foster, J. (2015). Pool Frog Reintroduction Plan for Thompson Common, Norfolk. Version: 20 March 2015. Unpublished report. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, Bournemouth. Contents 1. SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1 2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 3 2.1. Project origin and governance ............................................................................................... 3 2.2. Pool frog Reintroduction Strategy and international context ................................................... 3 2.3. Reintroduction guidelines ...................................................................................................... 4 3. RATIONALE FOR A SECOND REINTRODUCTION .................................................................... 5 3.1. Summary of rationale ............................................................................................................ 5 3.2. Progress under the national biodiversity strategy................................................................... 5 3.3. Progress towards favourable conservation status .................................................................. 5 4. SITE SELECTION FOR THE SECOND REINTRODUCTION........................................................ 7 4.1. Rationale for the selection of Thompson Common ................................................................ 7 4.2. Release location ................................................................................................................... 7 4.3. Addressing extinction factors at Thompson Common ............................................................ 8 5. REINTRODUCTION METHODS................................................................................................. 10 5.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................ 10 5.2. Overview – habitat management ......................................................................................... 10 5.3. Overview – translocation ..................................................................................................... 10 5.4. Overview – monitoring ........................................................................................................ 10 6. HABITAT MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................... 11 6.1. Pre-release habitat management measures ........................................................................ 11 6.2. Proposed short-term habitat management measures .......................................................... 11 6.3. Proposed long-term habitat management measures ............................................................ 13 7. TRANSLOCATION AND HEAD-STARTING .............................................................................. 14 7.1. Overview of head-starting ................................................................................................... 14 7.2. Collection of eggs ............................................................................................................... 14 7.3. Hatching and initial growth (indoors) ................................................................................... 14 7.4. Growth in artificial ponds (outdoors) .................................................................................... 14 7.5. Release of metamorphs ...................................................................................................... 14 7.6. Locations of artificial ponds ................................................................................................. 15 7.7. Managing disease and health risks ..................................................................................... 15 8. MONITORING ............................................................................................................................ 16 8.1. Post-release monitoring of pool frogs .................................................................................. 16 8.2. Monitoring other amphibian species .................................................................................... 16 8.3. Monitoring habitat ............................................................................................................... 17 8.4. Monitoring impacts on other SSSI features .......................................................................... 17 8.5. Indicators of success .......................................................................................................... 17 9. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE .................................................................................................. 19 9.1. Species and site legal protection ......................................................................................... 19 9.2. Head-starting and translocation of a European Protected Species ....................................... 19 9.3. Implications of impacts and potential impacts on a protected site ......................................... 19 10. IMPACT OF REINTRODUCTION ON SSSI/SAC FEATURES .................................................. 20 10.1. Consistency with Views About Management ..................................................................... 20 10.2. Operations requiring consent ............................................................................................ 20 10.3. Avoidance of designated features ..................................................................................... 21 10.4. Risk of harm to designated features .................................................................................. 22 10.5. Reintroduction site benefits ............................................................................................... 23 10.6. Habitats Regulations Assessment ..................................................................................... 30 11. COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................................ 31 11.1. Communications strategy under the first reintroduction ...................................................... 31 11.2. Planned communications for the second reintroduction ..................................................... 31 12. ENGAGEMENT WITH ZOOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS ............................................................ 33 i 12.1. ‘Hybrid’ pool frogs in zoological collections ........................................................................ 33 12.2. Supply of northern pool frogs to zoological collections ....................................................... 33 12.3. Legal and contractual regulation of captive stock ............................................................... 33 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ 34 14. LITERATURE .......................................................................................................................... 34 APPENDIX 1. STEPS REQUIRED FOR SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION ................................ 36 APPENDIX 2. EVALUATION AGAINST IUCN REINTRODUCTION GUIDELINES ......................... 37 Annex 3. Deciding when translocation is an acceptable option ................................................... 37 Annex 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 37 Annex 3.2 Assessing extinction causes .................................................................................. 38 Annex 3.3 Considering alternatives ........................................................................................ 40 Annex 4 Planning a translocation ............................................................................................... 41 Annex 5 Feasibility and design ................................................................................................... 42 Annex 5.1 Background biological and ecological knowledge.................................................... 42 5.2 Models, precedents for same/similar species .................................................................... 42 5.3 Habitat .............................................................................................................................. 43 5.4 Climate requirements ........................................................................................................ 45 5.5 Founders .......................................................................................................................... 46 5.6 Disease and parasite considerations ................................................................................. 47 Annex 6 Risk assessment........................................................................................................... 49 6.1 Assessing the risk landscape ........................................................................................... 49 6.2 Risks to the source population ........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parasitic Nematodes of Pool Frog (Pelophylax Lessonae) in the Volga Basin
    Journal MVZ Cordoba 2019; 24(3):7314-7321. https://doi.org/10.21897/rmvz.1501 Research article Parasitic nematodes of Pool Frog (Pelophylax lessonae) in the Volga Basin Igor V. Chikhlyaev1 ; Alexander B. Ruchin2* ; Alexander I. Fayzulin1 1Institute of Ecology of the Volga River Basin, Russian Academy of Sciences, Togliatti, Russia 2Mordovia State Nature Reserve and National Park «Smolny», Saransk, Russia. *Correspondence: [email protected] Received: Febrary 2019; Accepted: July 2019; Published: August 2019. ABSTRACT Objetive. Present a modern review of the nematodes fauna of the pool frog Pelophylax lessonae (Camerano, 1882) from Volga basin populations on the basis of our own research and literature sources analysis. Materials and methods. Present work consolidates data from different helminthological works over the past 80 years, supported by our own research results. During the period from 1936 to 2016 different authors examined 1460 specimens of pool frog, using the method of full helminthological autopsy, from 13 regions of the Volga basin. Results. In total 9 nematodes species were recorded. Nematode Icosiella neglecta found for the first time in the studied host from the territory of Russia and Volga basin. Three species appeared to be more widespread: Oswaldocruzia filiformis, Cosmocerca ornata and Icosiella neglecta. For each helminth species the following information included: systematic position, areas of detection, localization, biology, list of definitive hosts, the level of host-specificity. Conclusions. Nematodes of pool frog, excluding I. neglecta, belong to the group of soil-transmitted helminthes (geohelminth) and parasitize in adult stages. Some species (O. filiformis, C. ornata, I. neglecta) are widespread in the host range.
    [Show full text]
  • Diet Composition of the Karpathos Marsh Frog (Pelophylax Cerigensis): What Does the Most Endangered Frog in Europe Eat?
    Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 42.1 (2019) 1 Diet composition of the Karpathos marsh frog (Pelophylax cerigensis): what does the most endangered frog in Europe eat? P. Pafilis, G. Kapsalas, P. Lymberakis, D. Protopappas, K. Sotiropoulos Pafilis, P., Kapsalas, G., Lymberakis, P., Protopappas, D., Sotiropoulos, K., 2019. Diet composition of the Karpathos marsh frog (Pelophylax cerigensis): what does the most endangered frog in Europe eat? Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 42.1: 1–8, https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2019.42.0001 Abstract Diet composition of the Karpathos marsh frog (Pelophylax cerigensis): what does the most endangered frog in Europe eat? The Karpathos marsh frog (Pelophylax cerigensis) is considered the most endangered frog in Europe. Here we assess its feeding ecology and examine 76 individuals from the two known populations using the stomach flushing method. We also measured body weight, snout–vent length, mouth width and prey width and length. Pelophylax cerigensis follows the feeding pattern of green frogs of the adjacent areas, with Coleoptera, Araneae, Isopoda and Hymenoptera being the main prey groups. The two populations differed in body size but had similar values of prey abundance and frequency. It seems that P. cerigensis follows a strict feeding strategy. Further research on prey availability in its habitats will provide valuable insight. Key words: Diet, Endangered species, Islands, Frogs, Mediterranean Resumen Composición de la dieta de la rana de Kárpatos (Pelophylax cerigensis): ¿qué come la rana más amenazada de Europa? La rana de Kárpatos (Pelophylax cerigensis) es considerada la rana más amenazada de Europa. Aquí evaluamos su ecología alimentaria y examinamos 76 individuos de las dos poblaciones conocidas usando el método del lavado de estómago.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterfrog (Pelophylax Sp.) Found Near Domusnovas in Southwestern
    Beitrag_10_(Seiten89-103_ShortNotes)_SHORT_NOTE.qxd 01.08.2011 11:51 Seite 13 SHOrT nOTe HerPeTOZOa 24 (1/2) Wien, 30. Juli 2011 SHOrT nOTe 101 sides several Hyla sarda (De BeTTa, 1853), we found unexpectedly two waterfrogs, an adult and a sub-adult, the latter of which we managed to capture with the help of a net. The specimen (Fig. 1) was kept at the Zoo - logy Department of the University of Paler - mo (Laboratorio di Zoologia applicata, Di - partimento di Biologia animale, Università degli Studi di Palermo) until it died and then stored in the collection of the annexed mu - seo di Zoologia “Pietro Doderlein” (Via archirafi 16, Palermo 90123, Italy) under the museum number mZPa a-129. The finding place was the bank of a little stream flowing next to the cave. It was quite full of water and covered with vegetation, but it also contained some waste. The stream is located be tween a car park, just in front of the entrance to the cave, and a restaurant on the other side. The GPS co ordinates are: 39°20’10.74’’n, 8°37’39’’e, and the alti- tude is 181 m above sea level. We do not know for sure what species/ subspecies we found. Genetic verification Waterfrog (Pelophylax sp.) will be made by Daniele CaneSTreLLI (Vi - found near Domusnovas in terbo) on the specimen collected in order to see which group it belongs to. In fact, the southwestern Sardinia, Italy systematics of the waterfrogs of Italy is under debate. Until recently, the generally In Sardinia, and its satellite islands accepted concept claimed the presence of (i) there are 10 species of amphibians, six of the group Pelophylax lessonae and Pelo - which are caudates and four anurans, and 18 phylax kl.
    [Show full text]
  • Documented on Skin of Pool Frog (Pelophylax Lessonae) in Serbia
    NORTH-WESTERN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY 16 (2): 216-219 ©NWJZ, Oradea, Romania, 2020 Article No.: e202501 http://biozoojournals.ro/nwjz/index.html First report of water mold (Aphanomyces sp.) documented on skin of pool frog (Pelophylax lessonae) in Serbia Miloš STUPAR*, Katarina BREKA, Imre KRIZMANIĆ, Srđan STAMENKOVIĆ and Milica LJALJEVIĆ GRBIĆ University of Belgrade, Faculty of Biology, Studentski trg 16, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia. * Corresponding author, M. Stupar, E-mail: [email protected] Received: 25. October 2019 / Accepted: 27. January 2020 / Available online: 25. January 2020 / Printed: December 2020 Abstract. In the last several decades, numerous factors contributing to amphibian populations decline have been recorded, including emerging infectious diseases. The aim of this study was to investigate integument-associated microbiota of the P. esculentus complex from the locality Jaruga in South Banat (Serbia) using non-aggressive adhesive tape method. Morphological structures (hyphae, zoosporangia, primary and secondary zoospores) belonging to a water mold from the genus Aphanomyces which is a causative agent of aphanomycosis in amphibians, were detected on the skin of Pelophylax lessonae, the only member of the P. esculentus complex included in the National red book and supposedly the most susceptible to environmental threats in Serbia. Key words: Anura, aphanomycosis, pathogen, skin infection. The members of genus Aphanomyces de Bary (formerly Oo- chochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) Longcore, Pessier & D.K. mycota, order: Saprolegniales), are eukaryotic microorgan- Nichols and ranavirus. Kolenda et al., (2017) reported that isms, morphologically similar to fungi, and hence known as Bd infection was associated with reduced fitness in wild “water molds”, but genetically related to brown algae populations of P.
    [Show full text]
  • Rana Draytonii) in Coastal Waddell Creek
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research Spring 2015 Longitudinal Distribution and Summer Diurnal Microhabitat Use of California Red-Legged Frogs (Rana draytonii) in Coastal Waddell Creek Neil Keung San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses Recommended Citation Keung, Neil, "Longitudinal Distribution and Summer Diurnal Microhabitat Use of California Red-Legged Frogs (Rana draytonii) in Coastal Waddell Creek" (2015). Master's Theses. 4547. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.e7g8-uwah https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/4547 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LONGITUDINAL DISTRIBUTION AND SUMMER DIURNAL MICROHABITAT USE OF CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROGS ( Rana draytonii ) IN COASTAL WADDELL CREEK A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Biological Sciences San José State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Neil C. Keung May 2015 © 2015 Neil C. Keung ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Designated Thesis Committee Approves the Thesis Titled LONGITUDINAL DISTRIBUTION AND SUMMER DIURNAL MICROHABITAT USE OF CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROGS ( Rana draytonii ) IN COASTAL WADDELL CREEK by Neil C. Keung APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES SAN JOSÉ STATE UNIVERSITY May 2015 Dr. Jerry J. Smith Department of Biological Sciences Dr. Paula Messina Geology Department Stephanie Trewhitt Department of Biological Sciences ABSTRACT LONGITUDINAL DISTRIBUTION AND SUMMER DIURNAL MICROHABITAT USE OF CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROGS ( Rana draytonii ) IN COASTAL WADDELL CREEK by Neil C.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibian Identification
    Amphibian Identification Common frog Adults 6-7 cm. Smooth skin, which appears moist. Coloration variable, includes brown, yellow and orange. Some females have red markings on lower body. Usually has a dark ‘mask’ marking behind the eye. Breeding male Markings also variable, Grey/pale blue including varying amounts throat. of black spots and stripes. Thick front legs. Dark (nuptial) pad on inner toes of Young froglets look like the front feet. Spawn is laid in gelatinous smaller versions of the clumps. adults. Common toad Adults 5-9 cm. Rough skin. Brown with darker markings. Less commonly, some individuals are very dark, almost black, others are brick-red. Breeding pair Males smaller than females. Breeding males can also be distinguished by dark (nuptial) pads on innermost two toes of the front feet. Toad spawn is laid in gelatinous strings, wrapped around vegetation. Less conspicuous than common frog spawn. Makes small hops rather than jumps of common frog. Toadlets transforming from the Juveniles are tadpole stage are often very dark similar colours in colour. to adults, including brick-red. ARG UK Natterjack toad Strictly protected species, requiring Similar in size and appearance to common toad, a licence to handle but with a pale stripe running along the back. or disturb. This is a rare species, unlikely to be found outside specific dune and heathland habitats. On hatching common frog and toad tadpoles Frog Tadpoles are black. As they develop, common frog tadpoles become mottled with bronze, whereas toad tadpoles remain uniformly dark until the last stages of development. Common frog and toad tadpoles generally complete Toad development in the summer, but development rates are variable; some tadpoles may not transform until later in the year, or they may even remain as tadpoles over winter, becoming much larger than normal.
    [Show full text]
  • Agile Frog Data Analysis Research Project 2015
    Agile Frog Data Analysis Research Project 2015 Final Report - March 2015 Authors: Robert. J. Ward & Richard A. Griffiths Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NR 2015 Agile Frog Data Analysis - Final Report Contents Contents ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Table of figures .................................................................................................................................. 4 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Report ....................................................................................................................................... 10 1. Site trends - Spawning, peak frog counts, and tadpole releases ................................... 10 1.1. Dataset ................................................................................................................. 10 1.2. Analysis ................................................................................................................ 11 1.3. Results .................................................................................................................. 11 1.4. Discussion
    [Show full text]
  • Reintroduction of the Pool Frog to the United Kingdom
    The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or any of the funding organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN. Published by: IUCN/SSC Reintroduction Specialist Group & Environment Agency-Abu Dhabi Copyright: © 2018 IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Citation: Soorae, P. S. (ed.) (2018). Global Reintroduction Perspectives: 2018. Case studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Reintroduction Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Environment Agency, Abu Dhabi, UAE. xiv + 286pp. 6th Edition ISBN: 978-2-8317-1901-6 (PDF) 978-2-8317-1902-3 (print edition) DOI: https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2018.08.en Cover photo: Clockwise starting from top-left: I. Reticulated python, Singapore © ACRES II. Trout cod, Australia © Gunther Schmida (Murray-Darling Basin Authority) III. Yellow-spotted mountain newt, Iran © M. Sharifi IV. Scimitar-horned oryx, Chad © Justin Chuven V. Oregon silverspot butterfly, USA © U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VI. Two-colored cymbidium orchid, Singapore © Tim Wing Yam VII. Mauritius fody, Mauritius © Jacques de Spéville Cover design & layout by: Pritpal S.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibian Ark Number 43 Keeping Threatened Amphibian Species Afloat June 2018
    AArk Newsletter NewsletterNumber 43, June 2018 amphibian ark Number 43 Keeping threatened amphibian species afloat June 2018 In this issue... Reintroduction of the Northern Pool Frog to the UK - Progress Report, April 2018 ............... 2 ® Establishment of a captive breeding program for the Kroombit Tinkerfrog .............................. 4 In situ conservation of the Lemur Leaf Frog through habitat improvement and forest management practices in the Guayacán Rainforest Reserve in Costa Rica .................... 6 Neotropical amphibian biology, management and conservation course .................................. 8 Donation provides for equipment upgrades within the Biogeos Foundation facilities, at the Rescue of Endangered Venezuelan Amphibians program in Venezuela ................... 9 New AArk Conservation Grants program, and call for applications .................................. 10 Amphibian Advocates - José Alfredo Hernández Díaz, Africam Safari, Mexico ........ 11 Amphibian Advocates - Dr. Phil Bishop, Co-Chair IUCN SSC ASG............................... 12 AArk Newsletter - Instructions for authors ...... 13 A private donation helps the Valcheta Frog program in Argentina ...................................... 14 A rich food formula to raise tadpoles in captivity........................................................... 16 Vibicaria Conservation Program: creation of an ex situ model for a rediscovered species in Costa Rica ...................................................... 18 Reproduction of Dendropsophus padreluna at
    [Show full text]
  • Reintroduction Strategy for the Pool Frog Rana Lessonaein England
    Report Number 642 Reintroduction strategy for the pool frog Rana lessonae in England English Nature Research Reports working today for nature tomorrow English Nature Research Reports Number 642 Reintroduction strategy for the pool frog Rana lessonae in England John Buckley and Jim Foster (Editors) You may reproduce as many additional copies of this report as you like, provided such copies stipulate that copyright remains with English Nature, Northminster House, Peterborough PE1 1UA ISSN 0967-876X © Copyright English Nature 2005 This report was edited by John Buckley (The Herpetological Conservation Trust) and Jim Foster (English Nature) on behalf of the Pool frog Species Action Plan Steering Group. Members of the Steering Group (see Appendix 1) contributed text and suggestions for this document. This document is a slightly amended version of the reintroduction strategy being used as a working document by the Steering Group to guide pool frog conservation efforts. The current version is largely identical, apart from text and figure changes which were made to ensure that potential reintroduction site locations are not identifiable. It was considered necessary to keep the locations confidential to protect any released pool frogs. The methods outlined in this report were the most efficient and practical ones identified at the time of writing; it should be noted that in practice the methods used may vary slightly from these depending on the circumstances at the time of reintroduction. The authors may be contacted at: JB, The Herpetological Conservation Trust, 655a Christchurch Road, Boscombe, Bournemouth, Dorset BH1 4AP; tel 01202 391319; email [email protected]; JF, English Nature, Northminster House, Peterborough PE1 1UA; tel 01733 455251; [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Pool Frog (Pelophylax Lessonae) Camerano 1882 (Anura, Ranidae), an Addition to the Finnish Amphibian Fauna
    Memoranda Soc. Fauna Flora Fennica 89: 25–31. 2013 25 Pool frog (Pelophylax lessonae) CAMERANO 1882 (Anura, Ranidae), an addition to the Finnish amphibian fauna Tom Hoogesteger, Joel Rahkonen & Ari Karhilahti Hoogesteger, T., Department of Biological and Environmental Science, FI-40014 University of Jyväskylä, Finland. E-mail: [email protected] Rahkonen, J., Department of Biological and Environmental Science, FI-40014 University of Jyväskylä, Finland. E-mail: [email protected] Karhilahti, A., Zoological Museum, FI-20014 University of Turku, Finland. E-mail: [email protected] A population of pool frogs (Pelophylax lessonae) has been discovered in the municipality of Kaari- na, southwestern Finland. The species had not previously been recorded from Finland. The frogs show the external characteristics of the northern clade of the species, which suggests that they are of different origin than the allochthonous edible frogs (Pelophylax kl. esculentus) that are also present in southwestern Finland. Introduction is the case in Denmark and southernmost Swe- den, where P. kl. esculentus is common but nei- In the northern and central parts of Europe, the ther of the parental species is present (Gasc et al. green frog complex consists of two species: the 1997, Fog et al. 2001, Christiansen et al. 2005). marsh frog (Pelophylax ridibundus) and the pool Ridibundus – esculentus -systems, in which P. frog (P. lessonae), as well as the hybrid between kl. esculentus reproduces with P. ridibundus, are these two species, the edible frog (P. kl. esculen- known from Germany, the Baltic coast of Poland tus). The hybrids reproduce by means of hybri- and the island of Bornholm, Denmark (Rybacki dogenesis, in which one parental genome is com- & Fog 1995, Fog et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Parasitic Nematodes of Pool Frog (Pelophylax Lessonae) in the Volga Basin
    Revista MVZ Córdoba ISSN: 0122-0268 ISSN: 1909-0544 [email protected] Universidad de Córdoba Colombia Parasitic nematodes of Pool Frog (Pelophylax lessonae) in the Volga Basin V. Chikhlyaev, Igor; B. Ruchin, Alexander; I. Fayzulin, Alexander Parasitic nematodes of Pool Frog (Pelophylax lessonae) in the Volga Basin Revista MVZ Córdoba, vol. 24, no. 3, 2019 Universidad de Córdoba, Colombia Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=69360322014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21897/rmvz.1501 This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International. PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative Revista MVZ Córdoba, 2019, vol. 24, no. 3, September-December, ISSN: 0122-0268 1909-0544 Original Parasitic nematodes of Pool Frog (Pelophylax lessonae) in the Volga Basin Parásitos nematodos de la rana de piscina (Pelophylax lessonae) en la cuenca del Río Volga Igor V. Chikhlyaev DOI: https://doi.org/10.21897/rmvz.1501 Institute of Ecology of the Volga River Basi, Rusia Redalyc: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=69360322014 [email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9949-233X Alexander B. Ruchin Mordovia State Nature Reserve and National Park , Rusia [email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2653-3879 Alexander I. Fayzulin Institute of Ecology of the Volga River Basi, Rusia [email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2595-7453 Received: 04 February 2019 Accepted: 08 July 2019 Published: 29 August 2019 Abstract: Objetive. Present a modern review of the nematodes fauna of the pool frog Pelophylax lessonae (Camerano, 1882) from Volga basin populations on the basis of our own research and literature sources analysis.
    [Show full text]